Town Square

Oak Grove foe Mary Roberts to challenge Hosterman for mayor's post

Original post made
on Jul 21, 2008

Mary Roberts, a long-time member of the Pleasanton Planning Commission who also served as its chairwoman several times on a rotating basis, is planning to challenge Mayor Jennifer Hosterman for the city's top elective post on Nov. 4.

Posted by Timothy T
a resident of Downtown
on Jul 21, 2008 at 10:23 pm

All of the issues mentioned here are so convoluted and full of rhetoric that no one really knows what's going on. The back and forth has only created confusion (maybe on purpose) and now with two additional ballot measures, there's really no chance for someone who doesn't have the time to study every single word of all of the agreements to make an intelligent decision.

The one thing I'll be glad to see will be more than two candidates running for office as that means that we'll be able to pick from a better variety of beliefs and abilities than the last election.

I'm worried that without one central opponent, she will win. I hope only the strongest canidate will finally oppose here. If there are multiple choices with the same platform, it may dilute the opposition. For me, I hope anyone but her wins.

Now Republicans, like Brozosky, Roberts, and the Karl Rove crew, have created a new wedge issue (Pleasanton's hillsides) to divide the community. It's not that these right-wingers really care about our hillsides or Hosterman's stance on the Iraq War (see 2006 election); they simply want to manufacture an issue or controversy that somehow drives Hosterman out of office. People like Ayala, Brozosky, Roberts don't care about "preserving " Pleasanton, they care about driving a Democrat out of office and getting revenge after they were voted out of office. This is 100% political, make no mistake about it. Perhaps Brozosky, Roberts, Ayala and the rest of the election losers should stick to their private GW Bush Fan Club.

Posted by westsider
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Jul 22, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Geez Frank, are you saying that if you're a Republican, you couldn't possibly be in favor of preserving the hills? Or that limited development in return for a 500 acre nature park and trail system isn't a good deal for Pleasanton? Or are you just wanting to call people 'right-wingers' and 'losers?' I'm not sure what you're saying, to tell you the truth, but you're sure p.o.'d about something. I'm just not sure that its truly a Republican vs. Democrat issue, do you? Mary Roberts and Steve Brozosky may be politically motivated (gee, do ya think?) but painting all Republicans with the same nasty brush you so casually use may not be the wisest thing. Just a thought.

Posted by Jim
a resident of California Reflections
on Jul 22, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Frank your normal rational thinking goes out the window when you talk about Kay, Steve or Oak Grove. What is your history that makes you so rabid?
I hate seeing partisan politics brought into our local issues I think it hurts Ptown even more than it damages our country at large.

Posted by Pleasantonian
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2008 at 2:54 pm

To Frank,

You spew a considerable amount of bravado, appreciating that Hosterman won in 2006 by a measly 188 votes--hardly an overwhelming majority. Two years before that, in 2004, she won by plurality.

It's an insult to cast the considerable numbers of Pleasanton voters who DIDN'T vote for Hosterman as "right wingers" and the "Karl Rove crew."

As far as creating wedge issues and promoting partisan politics, it's Hosterman, arguably more than ANY of her predecessors in the Mayor's office, that has done both by constantly showcasing her liberal Democratic leanings, and an incredible arrogance unmatched by any of her predecessors, in my opinion.

She's turned the Mayor's office into her own bully-pulpit for her self-serving, self-aggrandizing political ambitions. I saw recently that she's been quoted about "winning again in 2010," already apparently looking beyond this November's election like she's already won it. Hmmm, there is indeed still a Mayor's race/election in 2008, isn't there? I hope her overconfidence is her downfall. Why don't you ask her when she plans to run for higher office after she's 'done' with Pleasanton?

I'm sick of her, and her partisan politics, and I hope a majority of Pleasanton voters are, too--at least enough to get behind a single candidate that will get at least 1 more vote overall than her.

The acronym 'ABH' should be every Pleasanton voter's rallying cry who desires a nonpartisan, non-egotistical mayor that's eager and satisfied to serve a small town like Pleasanton--period.

Posted by no partisan
a resident of Mission Park
on Jul 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm

I don't ever remember in my 30+ years in Pleasanton hearing our council members or mayor discuss partisan politics, until Hosterman came around. One can only imagine that she is more interested in positioning herself for a higher office as a democrat. She even went as far to hire a member of the Democratic Central Committee, Angela Romeriz Holmes, to help run her campaign. What is sad is that Hosterman hired Holmes not too far after she barely won the last election according to the financial disclosures. Hosterman has been spending her whole term campaigning. I wish she spent the time actually doing something for our community instead. One would think that if you were doing a good job as a local elected official that you would not need to hire a PR person. I don't know of any other elected official in the valley who has a PR person.

What are you suggesting by "power to the Mob"? In the past you have also made a comment about Mob mentality, suggesting a group of citizens that share a concern and organize to address it is a bad thing. Yet in another thread you said if there is not an organized group there is no credibility to the issue.
You are talking out of both sides of your face again. You will have credibility when you have done something for Pleasanton other than complain.

Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jul 22, 2008 at 4:49 pm

errata: there, not their

There are not too many people named Frank these days, but still the confusion arises. Maybe, I will modify my PW posting moniker to a more unique one in order to avoid the confusion that the format and rules of this blog creates.

Anyways, after reading the content of this thread all I can say is that Hostermann by her nature is a more controversial political figure than Pleasanton experienced in the past. I suppose it originates in her more extreme left views on national issues. Nevertheless, there are other ideologues active in our political landscape and I suppose Pleasanton has turned a corner so to speak and will now experience a lot more polarization on issues.

Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jul 22, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Jim, I'm still a bit puzzled as toward whom am I hostile. In past threads I have been critical of Sullivan and McGovern, not hostile, and in those threads I recall stating my basic reasons for the criticism. Are these the two of the "best" to whom you refer?

I suppose being hostile and being critical get lumped together as one and the same. If you are not for someone, then you are against them, I suppose. However, I'm old-fashion and still distinguish differences. However, at the end of the day it is what resides in people's minds that matters. In my mind, the two above mentioned "best" are far from it. So, if in your mind I am hostile toward these two, then so be it.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 22, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Karen,

You wrote: "What are you suggesting by "power to the Mob"? In the past you have also made a comment about Mob mentality, suggesting a group of citizens that share a concern and organize to address it is a bad thing."

I never wrote such a thing and if I did, provide a citation to where I said that! What I have written in the past is about the concept of "tyranny of the majority". It was in reference to Timothy T's post above where he says, "there's really no chance for someone who doesn't have the time to study every single word of all of the agreements to make an intelligent decision". Is it fair that people asked to vote on laws at the ballot box don't have time to study every single word in order to make an intelligent decision? Would YOU want a mob to take away YOUR rights because that mob didn't have time to study? THAT is a "bad thing".

You also wrote: "Yet in another thread you said if there is not an organized group there is no credibility to the issue."

Again, provide a citation! That is just so twisted that I'm not even sure what it is I wrote that you are getting so wrong. Is this about what I wrote in the Pat Kernan thread regarding the lack of people showing up at the school board meeting?

More of what you wrote: "You are talking out of both sides of your face again. You will have credibility when you have done something for Pleasanton other than complain."

Whether done intentionally or not, you and several others here deviate often from arguing about pros and cons on issues alone and instead turn to trying to discredit me personally. I don't care if you don't agree with what I write. That is no skin off my teeth. At least be civil enough to refrain from engaging in such lowbrow debate techniques.

Please tell me what must I do "for Pleasanton"? What must anyone do "for Pleasanton" before they get any credibility with you or Kathleen of Bridle Creek? Your words appear not only insulting to me, but insulting to everyone who has never done anything you require of them "for Pleasanton". By the way, I vote in every election.

If you honestly believe that the made-up words you're trying to put into my mouth is "speaking out of both sides" then I wonder what you call it when Kay Ayala stands up at the last Council meeting to defend her initiative that will amend the General Plan? She said the reason no ridgeline protection ordinance was created when she was on Council (for 8 years) was because no hillside developments made it to her desk. And the reason for that was because of the protections against such things in the General Plan. I don't have the exact quote unfortunately but I was certainly scratching my head while watching that! If the protections are in the General Plan, why amend it?! I think whatever Ayala was trying to say sure didn't come out right.

Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jul 22, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Same old same old. They stuff words in your mouth (claim you said this or that) and criticize you on the basis of the words they stuffed in your mouth. Of course, this works often with many people who don't realize the tactic being used against them. They don't stop and think "gee, I didn't say that".

Over the last 8 months of so, when this Oak Grove/hillside initiative thing started, the Ayala-led faction that includes Sullivan and McGovern as her followers repeatedly do this.

Each time it is necessary to bat down the misinformation that they send into the air.

Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jul 22, 2008 at 9:34 pm

The way I get it is because during the years that Ayala was on the council she did but also did not protect the southeast hills from some kind of over-development, like 51 Oak Grove homes. So, now that's a BIG problem. Get it?

Posted by Agglomerator
a resident of Gatewood
on Jul 22, 2008 at 9:38 pm

The real issue with the hillside initiative is that now that all the homes in Castlewood have been developed, they won't be covered by the hillside regulations. Anyone who has driven in Castlewood can testify that many, many homes there are in the +25% grade category and thus they likely could not be built today under the hillside initiative.

Posted by Nicole
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Some of the proponents of the initiative are on 25% grade or better including Cindy McGovern. That is why the council measure is preferable. It will actually look at defining ridges and look at what 25% slope really means. We all have suffered from legislation that has unforseen consequences. Let's not make that mistake.

The initiative does not stop development. It just moves it someplace else away from some of the proponents homes and into more densely populated areas.

Posted by another comment
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Jul 22, 2008 at 10:17 pm

No, the real deal is that Kay and Co., sore losers that they are (both Brozosky and Ayala having lost to Hosterman in the past), are trying desperately to paint the Mayor as a pro growth-in the developers' pocket candidate, while providing an opportunity for one of their own to run against the Mayor as a slow-growther. It's quite despicable. Mayor Hosterman has delivered on a number of big ticket projects for the people of Pleasanton, and will, given fiscal constraints, continue to do the same. I applaud the Mayor and I think she's doing a good job!

I'm sorry. It looks like I got under the skin of some of you O'Reilly watching right-wingers. Why don't you call a waaahmbulance! Hey, maybe Brozosky and Dan Carl "Rove" can create another ridiculously contrived "email controversy" over Hosterman's emails like the 2006 election if this hillside wedge issue doesn't work out for them. Their moves are nothing more than thinly veiled Republican, divide and conquer, Karl Rove-like politics at a local level. You must be blind or dishonest if you don't see a Republican agenda behind all of this anti-Hosterman sentiment. Brozosky, Ayala, Roberts, McGovern, and Dan Carl "Rove" = Republican hacks that can't win elections (sore losers).

I thought Ayala was very clear in saying no hillside developments came forward because it was understood the council at that time would not have supported it. The test the water conversations made it clear that council would have used the general plan to prevent it.

This pro-growth council has sent the message that they are willing to be creative and as Mayor Hosterman has said 'allow flexibility in "interpreting" the general plan or the Vineyard specific plan' if a friendly developer says please. Which is what happened with the large house approved in the hills along Vineyard.

Sadly Tom Pico as Mayor was a primary reason why there would have been no hope of bringing such a project forward in the past. But it is his relationship with Madam mayor (she could not have gotten elected without his endorsement) that ensures these hillside projects, for which he is a consultant, get passed.

Knowing I can no longer trust in Tom Pico feels like when I learned there was no Santa Clause, a loss of innocence.

Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 23, 2008 at 10:47 am

Again, this mention of a progrowth council! This council has only approved 200 units. That is not progrowth. We have a housing cap. There are something like less than 2000 units available. Progrowth???? Oak Grove was four years in the making, 9 public meetings and a small group of people don't want the development built.
Why?
Because some live in the hills just below the development. Their houses are already there. They want these remaining units to be developed on the flat land of Pleasanton where the density is already high. They are not protecting the majority of Pleasantonian's quality of life but their own. They don't want the 500 hundred acres of park land for everyone in town to enjoy because you might have to use "their" public road to get to it. As it is they can already use the land by crossing a fence onto privately owned areas. The other proponents are looking for a wedge issue, something to build an election around.

Posted by not below development
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 23, 2008 at 11:16 am

"A small group of people who do not want the development built"? I am sorry but I am one of the 5,000+ people who signed the petition against this development. This development will be seen from others parts of the city and it destroys many, many oak trees. I also remember our mayor when running last time saying that we do not need more mansions but we need more smaller houses. I am also disgusted at Tom Pico. He started working for the developer, James Tong, immediately after he left office.

And elected officials cannot understand why they are not trusted by the people?

I also remember Hosterman and Sullivan vehemently saying there would be no more mansions then they approved Oakgrove and the megamansion Vineyard home.

The numbers are misleading. The previous council approved projects that were sensitive to our housing cap and general plan. This council is progrowth because they are looking for ways to add units and get around the safeguards that are in place.

I am a multi-generation TriValley native (funny how we are rated by that). I get tired of the pull up the drawbridge argument.
I have never been no growth but I have always felt the community has a responsibility to protect our quality of life while allowing smart growth. We should not be bullied into allowing anything like what Dublin has done to ever happen again. Hostermans interpreting our protections(general plan and specific plan) is a scary begining to losing the quality of life battle.

I believe Ayala and Brozosky's motives are consistant and pure. Oarkgrove may have began as a call for help from the neighbors but that is the way issues begin. If a candidate develops from those issues that is also the normal and noble process of community leaders.

Posted by PF Changs!
a resident of Foothill Farms
on Jul 23, 2008 at 9:04 pm

It is impossible to beat a sitting mayor who is willing to lie, cheat and steal to win - especially one who is aiming at higher office. An honest competitor who follows the rules cannot win. More than one challenger - and Ms. Hosterman wins by default.

Thank GOD we have a PF Changs! You Go Girl! "Stacey" - maybe you can take credit for "Redcoats" as well? At least we have places to eat and drink to take our minds off the horrid leadership in City Hall.

Posted by accomplishments
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jul 23, 2008 at 9:23 pm

The biggest accomplishment you can attribute to Hosterman is the lack of an update to the General Plan. No wonder we cannot get anything done at city hall. "Her" staff has been tied up with the General Plan update since she first got elected to mayor.

And if you want to talk about regional relations, the elected officials in cities around us cannot stand working with her. You just have to mention Hosterman and their eyes roll. She has been trying to get elected to a position at Congestion Management (CMA) and everytime she nominates herself, the other cities around us block her. Hosterman's theme song is the "meow mix" commercial but instead of saying "meow" she says "me"

Posted by Pleasanton Mom
a resident of Mission Park
on Jul 23, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Do only republicans post on the website? I was just wondering, because reading here doesn't add up to the overwelming win that Ms. Hosterman experienced in the last election. I'm just curious. Also, why do people hate that she thinks globally instead of just inside of our community?

Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jul 23, 2008 at 9:53 pm

I was going to stay out of any further comment in this thread given that so many Frank's are posting the confusion is reaching level RED.

But, Pleasanton Mom: where were you at the last election? Jennifer beat Brozosky by a very very slim margin! Your perception of her having won overwhelmingly may exist in your mind but is widely known to be NOT! Look it up.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 24, 2008 at 8:19 am

PF, are you insinuating the same old and boring belief that I'm somehow Hosterman by mentioning me in your post? I suggest you do a little research before making your false accusation. I even left you a clue. Go look up what time I wrote the "Political Tricks" thread and compare that with the very publicly known whereabouts of Hosterman at that time.

Yes, we have had some strong community voices that became community leaders in the past. They worked on initiatives, collected a lot of signatures, took a lot of abuse,to put protections in place. We must now be vigilant when our leaders see no violation in interpreting those protections. That is what galvanized Kay, who has no desire to return to council (as much as I wish she would), to wake up the community to this threat.

I remember when Ben Tarver was our Mayor and he and Tom Pico talking to Dublin, begging them not to approve their plan to cover the hills with thousand of housing units. I did not understand their concern when they said Dublin was going to damage the whole Valley with their gluttony(Dublin said we were just jealous of the revenue they would get). I think of Ben and Tom (even Becky) every time I sit in the traffic on 580 at 4:00 in the afternoon.

You don't have enough background to understand what has gone into protecting our quality of life or you would not be so critical of those that are doing the same today.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 25, 2008 at 7:51 am

Sarah,

Well you're right to say I don't have enough background since I haven't paid attention to local issues until recently, but the suggestion that I wouldn't be so critical is somewhat silly. Here's an example. You mentioned Tom Pico. Did you think his 680 off-ramp metering light helped protect Pleasanton quality of life? Am I not supposed to be critical of that fiasco because Pico talked to Dublin?

Additionally, should no one be critical of current elected officials and other public figures who put themselves in the limelight because someone else believes their motives to be "constant and pure?

Let me ask you, how does preventing Oak Grove protect Pleasanton quality of life? How does shifting very low density development off the hillsides, concentrating it into high density development on the valley floor, and losing a 500 acre park in the beautiful hills protect Pleasanton quality of life?

To Ken Mercer, Bob Butler, Karin Mohr, Brian Swift, and the rest of the Pleasanton leadership during the 70's and 80's: Thank you for mapping the route, building the tracks, and seeing the train out of the station. It's taken twenty years but it appears as though that train is finally coasting to a stop. The result of your planning, hard work and execution is the best damned community around!
The train's still on the tracks. It just needs a solid engineer and a few good people who want to shovel some coal. Thanks again to the people who got it right 20 and 30 years ago!

What Mercer et all did was right for the time, but if it had not been for their nemesis' Tarver, Pico, and Dennis that train would not have slowed down and would have found itself in an ugly town that looks like Dublin, Yuck!

We need Leaders committed to maintaining our quality of life without finding ways to get around our general plan.

One of Mercer's last acts was the approval of Kottinger Hills, aka Kottinger Ranch Phase 2, now Oak Grove. It was 87 (or so) homes and a public golf course. Tarver and Pico ride into office, recall the project, and it sits for 15 years. Pico is now out of office and working on the project for what that's worth, and who knows where Tarver is? Meanwhile our fair city builds it own public golf course on land within yards of where the other one would have been, and it only cost us $45 million.
So when you see Mercer, Butler, Mohr, Swift, or any body else from that generation of leadership; just say thanks...they really knew what they were doing.

Posted by Informed Citizen
a resident of Country Fair
on Jul 27, 2008 at 6:26 am

Ms. Hosterman spent closer to $30,000 in the last election - and used City Computers, e-mail and thousands of dollars of City-paid for cell phones overcharges to call people for votes, support and financial contributions during campaing 2006. In addition, she received much more "soft" support from various (political and developer) groups that was worth tens of thousands of dollars that were not documented.

She was and is willing to spend YOUR tax dollars to keep her seat. Her use of City resources was so stinky in 2006 that she was turned into the Alameda County DA by a very reluctant City Manager and Police Chief (they effectively turned their boss in to the DA for investigation).

No general plan update (coming up on a DECADE late), traffic still a horrid mess, tax and real estate revenues looking to crater due to the housing crunch and economic recession - and Ms. Hosterman spends more time on international issues like human induced global warming, nuclear weapons, the Iraq war etc. than doing City Business. She enjoys spending your tax dollars on boondoogle "lobbyling" trips to DC or yearly Mayor's conferences- when a car ride or phone call to the Congressperson's or Senator's home office will do (just think of the increased carbon footprint for all those big trips!). She sure doesn't act like someone protecting your pocketbook - she likes to spend your money.

But, sadly, no way to stop her. A sitting mayor with huge developer backing willing to sell her soul and shave off our remaining undeveloped hillsides so she can become a Congress critter or Assembly critter someday is tough to beat. Too bad too many people don't know the facts.

Wow! I don't even know where to begin. Most of your post is just flat out untrue, but hey don't let that stop you. It must be an election year so the nastiness comes out in full force. Community of character?! Hah!

I agree with you on one thing though. I guess it is too bad that too many people don't know the facts, including you!

Be a part of the solution instead of the problem and get involved. There are plenty of ways to get involved and make Pleasanton the community you think it should be other than trashing the part-time Mayor.

You should be thankful that people still believe in public service, those willing to put themselves out there to try and make a difference for their communities, despite the public trashing that has seemed to be rampant of late.

Thank you to all who serve Pleasanton. Those of us who do know the facts appreciate your service and while we may not always agree with every decision, we know that everyone is just trying their best to make Pleasanton a great place. We just sometimes disagree on how to do that.

Posted by Also Informed
a resident of Country Fair
on Jul 27, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Nancy - Most of what Informed Citizen wrote is true. Just ask the Editor of the Pleasanton Weekly who has all the e-mails and interviewed the City Manager regarding the referral of the Mayor to the DA.

Posted by just wondering
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Yes, the General Plan update is coming up on taking a decade. Don't forget the update began 10 years ago when Kay Ayala and then Steve Brozosky were on the council. They couldn't get it done in six years. The Mayor has only been in office for four years so I don't think its fair to put all the blame on the current Mayor and council. Again, lets stick to the facts, rather then making statements based on not liking an individual who has been elected by the citizens.

Posted by Fletch
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Well then, let's stick with correct facts. Brozosky and Hosterman were both elected to council the same time around==2002. They and Ayala served together from 2002-2004. Hosterman is coming up on 6 years, not 4.

Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jul 28, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Actually, facts are always correct by definition, otherwise they are not facts. I noticed that "wondering" said the Mayor has been in office 4 years, which is correct, but saying this does not give recognition to "Fletch's" point that Hostermann has been on the council 6 years, the first two as a councilmember only. Both are apparently correct, so both statements are factual.

Still, the conclusion that may be drawn from "Fletch's" point apparently is that Ayala, Brozosky, and Hostermann are equally guilty of any shortcoming, if there is one. Since it is Ayala primarily throwing rocks at Hostermann on the issue, one can conclude that Ayala is the hypocrite.

Posted by Informed Citizen
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Jul 29, 2008 at 9:01 pm

"The Buck Stops Here." - The General Plan Update is the Mayor's responsibility to prioritize and complete. She has not gotten it done in the four years she has been in charge. Instead - she priotized discussion on international issues and spent time going to Mayor's conferences on our dime to put out anti-nuclear weapons manifestos. Great Job, Mayor!

Now - let's all go to the PF Changs that Ms. Hosterman single handedly brought to P-town. Yum. Yum.

Posted by Mr. Wilson
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2008 at 11:39 pm

Frankster, consider role playing with ideas that have values worth defending. I am interested, regardless who runs for office, what subject matter would be readily acceptable to you with shared values that are common within all of us. Any ideas who the ruling class is in Pleasanton? Who do we distrust the most? Actually Frankster, transcending your own abilities in understanding other people would serve you well. Hosterman is not difficult to understand. She will only be difficult to beat if we continue to believe what is passed down as truth. Community must respond.

Posted by Mr. Wilson
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 31, 2008 at 9:50 am

Political Correctness at its best Frank,thanks.

Condescending? That hurts.I don't have thick enough skin for politics, that's for sure.
Would Mary Roberts provide leadership and direction as Mayor? Mary would provoke thought and provide citizens areas to gather information for a more informed decision. She would use the Mayor's forum to update all Citizens of Pleasanton of important issues. Our current Mayor lacks that ability. I'm sure that this must be an oversight. I voted for her twice, always believed in second chances. The current Mayor recently stated that it appeared that the hillside initiatives would be the main campaign issue up to election day. Why? Mayor Hosterman has every opportunity to shift matters collectively to balance concerns to all citizens needs.
Maybe you are a bit paranoid Frank, for that, I would suggest some exercise.
There is a definite relationship between being aware and taking action. I would hope that a shared view of idenity would take place and some of the arogance would subside.
Creating a forum to actively submit 10 questions, more or less, that provoke thought process, provide a shared sense of community and a strong social stability to be asked each candidate might be worthy to consider. Anyways, I love you too, Frank.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 31, 2008 at 11:26 am

Adding "-ster" to the end of someone's name isn't condescending? Why don't you take yourself up on your offer to be productive and create 10 questions? It might get you somewhere instead of being stuck in the same old routine of attacking people.

Posted by Mr. Wilson
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 31, 2008 at 3:29 pm

I'll tell you what Stacey, this is no forum to meet your neighbors. Considering that you are in defensive mode, I'll welcome that spirit of yours when all candidates declare themselves. Would you like the questions broad based across the board? I hope you are interested in creating a better future. Adding "ster" to someone's name, growing up, often meant friendship or respect. To bad you wish to drive the hardest bargains to engage. Anyways, I'll be respectful of you. After candidates declare, ask the first question most appealing to you in determining what may or may not assist you in selecting a representative for council. I am glad you engage in active citizenship.